We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy: a prospective, nonrandomized study.
Urology 2012 November
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy, focusing on postoperative pain and analgesic requirement.
METHODS: Nonrandomized, prospective comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Thirty-four patients underwent laparoendoscopic single-site (17 radical nephrectomy/17 partial nephrectomy); 42 underwent multiport laparoscopy (28 radical nephrectomy/14 partial nephrectomy) from February 2009 to February 2010. Laparoendoscopic single-site transperitoneal access was obtained by periumbilical incision through which all trocars were inserted. Laparoendoscopic radical nephrectomy/partial nephrectomy recapitulated steps of multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy/partial nephrectomy. Demographics/tumor characteristics, outcomes, and complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Forty-two of 42 multiport laparoscopic and 32/34 laparoendoscopic single-site cases were successfully performed. Mean follow-up was 16.2 months. For laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopy groups mean operating room time (min) was 159.3 vs 158.9 (P = .952); mean estimated blood loss (mL) was 175.7 vs 156.1 (P = .553); percent transfused was 2.9% vs 0% (P = .925). No significant differences in complications were noted (P = .745). Significant decrease in analgesic use (6 morphine equivalents vs 11.6, P < .001) and discharge pain score (1.7 vs 2.7, P < .01) were noted in laparoendoscopic single-site vs multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. For laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy and multiport laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, no significant differences were noted for tumor diameter (1.8 vs 2.0 cm, P = .57), RENAL score (0.962), ischemia time (28.6 vs 27.5 minutes, P = .70), and preoperative (P = .78)/postoperative creatinine (P = .32). For laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, no significant differences were noted for mean tumor diameter (5.6 vs 5.3 cm, P = .63), RENAL score (P = .815), and mean operative time (142.3 vs 155.4 minutes P = .13).
CONCLUSION: In this well-matched, prospective comparison, laparoendoscopic single-site is comparable with multiport laparoscopic surgery in terms of perioperative parameters and may confer benefit with respect to analgesic requirement. Randomized evaluation and longer-term follow-up are necessary.
METHODS: Nonrandomized, prospective comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Thirty-four patients underwent laparoendoscopic single-site (17 radical nephrectomy/17 partial nephrectomy); 42 underwent multiport laparoscopy (28 radical nephrectomy/14 partial nephrectomy) from February 2009 to February 2010. Laparoendoscopic single-site transperitoneal access was obtained by periumbilical incision through which all trocars were inserted. Laparoendoscopic radical nephrectomy/partial nephrectomy recapitulated steps of multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy/partial nephrectomy. Demographics/tumor characteristics, outcomes, and complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Forty-two of 42 multiport laparoscopic and 32/34 laparoendoscopic single-site cases were successfully performed. Mean follow-up was 16.2 months. For laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopy groups mean operating room time (min) was 159.3 vs 158.9 (P = .952); mean estimated blood loss (mL) was 175.7 vs 156.1 (P = .553); percent transfused was 2.9% vs 0% (P = .925). No significant differences in complications were noted (P = .745). Significant decrease in analgesic use (6 morphine equivalents vs 11.6, P < .001) and discharge pain score (1.7 vs 2.7, P < .01) were noted in laparoendoscopic single-site vs multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. For laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy and multiport laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, no significant differences were noted for tumor diameter (1.8 vs 2.0 cm, P = .57), RENAL score (0.962), ischemia time (28.6 vs 27.5 minutes, P = .70), and preoperative (P = .78)/postoperative creatinine (P = .32). For laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, no significant differences were noted for mean tumor diameter (5.6 vs 5.3 cm, P = .63), RENAL score (P = .815), and mean operative time (142.3 vs 155.4 minutes P = .13).
CONCLUSION: In this well-matched, prospective comparison, laparoendoscopic single-site is comparable with multiport laparoscopic surgery in terms of perioperative parameters and may confer benefit with respect to analgesic requirement. Randomized evaluation and longer-term follow-up are necessary.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app